Ok, what is P4P based on? Like seriously.

[Sheldon312]

You have guys ranking Crawford number one based off the eye test but he has a weaker resume compared to guys like Loma, Rigo, Thurman, Sadam, Spence, GGG, Mikey, and Canelo. Canelo and GGG both have good resumes and it can be argued that Loma has the better skills and resume than everyone since he just beat another top 04p fighter, yet you have a significant amount of people ranking him below Crawford, GGG, canelo. What about Spence and Thurman? They both have bodies on their resume yet I don't see them ranked as highly as Crawford. Joshua has a name, Loma has a name, Canelo has a name, GGG has a name, but Crawford doesn't have a name. So why is he ranked so highly? So, I am confused, what is P4P based on exactly. And please don't use the ,"everything equal" because I don't know how you quantify that.

['b']

Completely subjective opinion

[FinitoxDinamita]

Depends on alot of things but i never like to get into these pfp talks. It is just a subjective list, doesn mean sht.

[A.K]

Eye test should be number one cause it’s a matter of how you dominated your opp and how ranked the opp was, I compare it to the BCS college football rankings, best way to define p4p.

[Joe Beamish]

It's based on being successful in moving up in weight, or promising to be successful. Guys who've proven (or who seem most likely) to succeed in moving into higher weights are the one who are awarded the most P4P chips.

So, Golovkin doesn't always get huge credit in the P4P subjective rankings because he hasn't moved up, and probably won't (and probably wouldn't rock the world doing so.)

Similarly, Loma for all his great skills doesn't appear to have a lot of upside moving up. He's great where he is now. But his frame isn't big like Floyd's was, and he doesn't have a lot of power like Pacquaio did. Loma isn't going to hop up to 140 and start rocking the world. Let alone 147.

Crawford was tops at 140 -- and he looks likely to be that good at 147. Not that he's proven it yet.

In a nutshell, P4P rankings go to the guys who look good moving up. Golovkin's high ranking was exceptional and was based on how devastating he was at one time (not anymore.)

[Sheldon312]

Eye test should be number one cause it’s a matter of how you dominated your opp and how ranked the opp was, I compare it to the BCS college football rankings, best way to define p4p.

You can't do that though. If fighter a is dominating b-level and c- level opposition then it doesn't tell the whole story.

[A.K]

You can't do that though. If fighter a is dominating b-level and c- level opposition then it doesn't tell the whole story.

And the bcs sees this and ranks the team who won against a top 5 higher.

[satiev1]

Crawford is the midget slayer.

[IMDAZED]

Should be based on resume but folks get enamored by how good you look outboxing or KO’ing tomato cans.

[Sheldon312]

Should be based on resume but folks get enamored by how good you look outboxing or KO’ing tomato cans.

That's why I don't rank Tyson ahead of Foreman